Attachment 12703Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
Printable View
Attachment 12703Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
What will the Reds' marketing department spend its money on now?
Another statue for Pete.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsBrick
I'm not wanting to go all political. But I'm a conservative. And my condemnation of it had nothing to do with popularity. It has to do with what's right and wrong. Having been a fairly decent looking guy who taught high school in his early 20s, I had quite the number of girls below 18 make passes at me. The means some went to was pretty ridiculous. But you know what...I am adult. That was in position of authority. Abusing that is the epitome of disgusting. I've defended Rose quite hard on this board and taken quite a bit of slack for it. But if these allegations are true, the. He deserves no defense. The law thinks so too. Hence statutory rape being a strict liability offense. (There is a defense....that it didn't happen. Other than that it takes some pretty crazy circumstances to mount a defense.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
Well this is a happy topic.
One can only hope...Quote:
Originally Posted by dougdirt
It is getting 'picked up' because Pete seems to be admitting to it in newly filed court documents. The ESPN story states " Rose acknowledged he had a sexual relationship with the woman in court documents made public Monday, but he said his information and belief was that it started when she was 16." Dowd claims that Rose's relationship with this woman went on for 'several years'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redsfaithful
Of course what we are talking about happened over 40 years ago, and so no criminal charges seem possible due to the statute of limitations. However, even consensual sex with a 16 year old (when Rose was 34 and married) seems relevant to Rose's lawsuit against Dowd. Dowd claimed that Rose was being provided with girls from age 12 to 14 by Michael Bertolini, which would clearly have been criminal. Rose is suing claiming that was a lie (libel/slander/defamation). The now admitted fact about Rose having what sounds likes an ongoing affair with a girl who was 15 or 16 at the time is similar, but not quite right on point with Dowd's original claim.
The statute of limitations in Ohio for sexual contact with a minor (under 16) is currently "20 years after victim turns 18 or after notification to authorities, whichever comes first". So 'Jane Doe' had until she turned 38 to report this if she wanted criminal prosecution, which apparently she did not. Still, if this all happened in the 1970s, she had until sometime in the 1990s to file charges.
Looking at the ongoing Rose v. Dowd saga, I have no respect for either of these men. If Dowd knew (in 1989 when he wrote his report) that Rose had sex with an underage girl back in the 70s, why didn't he report it to the authorities, and get a timely investigation and possible prosecution? By sitting on this for so long, he helped protect Rose... if his allegation was true.
I found this tidbit at the end of the ESPN story interesting: "Dowd, also 76, is a former federal prosecutor and a longtime Washington attorney who is now leading President Donald Trump's legal defense team in the Russia probe." I didn't know that....
I don't know. It really isn't anyone's business other than Rose and the woman. If in her 20s and 30s she either felt that (a) Rose hadn't wronged her or (b) she didn't want to rehash the issue, I don't think it's really Dowd's place to make that call for her.Quote:
Originally Posted by mbgrayson
Roger Clemens approves this thread.
And if Rose is slimy (he is) what does that make Dowd for what seems to be releasing this info to the public for no other particular reason aside from being "mad" at Pete?
Answer? Worse
Your 21 year old dad asked a 16 year old to marry him? How old was she when he started dating her? Did they ask the parents for consent like when she turned 16? Was your dad like cruising the high school dances like Mathew McConahay in Dazed and Confused? She had you "by the time" she was 17 and they asked to get married when she turned 16? Did they get married the same day? I have so many questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
Nah, raping a teenager is worse than words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy Jones
Well let's hope it's not Sundown Danny Thomas since you're all off topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
Some of the posts in this thread are absolutely appalling, but all things considered this might be my favorite post in rz history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
I guess I'll just post this for a second time in two pages.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy Jones
Attachment 12705
Pete, the Banana Man, Charlie- must be something in the water in that town. Does this mean i can't watch Rosemary's Baby or the Pianist anymore?
I've got a feeling that dad and mom may have made a mistake and that's what resulted in the asking for her hand in marriage at 16... but that's just me (also one of those little high school mistakes).Quote:
Originally Posted by RedTeamGo!
I'm just going to leave this here:
https://youtu.be/TM2RUVnTlvs
Yep, disgusting, legal age of consent or not when they're under 18. That said, I've known several women who've known, dated or had relationships with Reds' players in the late 90's and early-mid 2000's - guys you thought were fairly squeaky clean are womanizing, perverted jerks in "real life," they were high profile players as well. The things they do on "dates" (away from their wives) in the privacy of hotel rooms and apartments made me squeamish and lose a lot of respect for pro jocks in general (they aren't all bad, of course, but you just don't really know - their public persona can be quite the opposite of who they are on the road at night. It's a lifestyle we can't relate to or imagine, and the more popular/richer they are, the worse the stories seem to get. That a 16 or 17 year old gets into the mix doesn't surprise me at all - especially 30+ years ago. And no I'm not coming close to defending it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedTeamGo!
Rose was a blue collar kid from the west side, wasn't particularly intelligent and was a bit of a street kid to-boot, and the 70's were notorious for extremes. That he did such a thing doesn't surprise me, and just based on personal experience/knowledge, it's hard for me to view him any differently than I do a lot of pro ball players - I've rarely, if ever, admired professional athletes for who they are as people or off the field. Rose is no different. The exceptions to that are nice though.
I'm guessing half of the HOF is full of guys who have done close-to or similar things, or things that you would never want your kids to know about. Good player doesn't always equal good person, no matter how they're depicted by George Grande and Jim Day on TV.
Just my 2 cent.
n/m
This is not the kind of post I've come to expect from you, Larry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Schuler
Glad to hear there are so many enlightened feminists posting here. makes me wonder how Mr Grab em by the something something ever carried Ohio.
Was it actual rape though? Or was it consensual? Big difference. Still not right due to the age difference (anybody with a teenage daughter would agree, and I have two) but consensual vs rape is a HUGE difference. I'm not talking statutory rape. I'm talking forcible rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedTeamGo!
Todd Benzinger "dated" a girl I grew up with. She was 16.
you do realize the entire basis of statutory rape is the woman is not of the age to consent, right? thus making it non consensual?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy Jones
jesus dude
The report says she was not yet 16. So, let's just say she was 15. That is a child. Pete Rose was a 34 year old adult, one of the most famous people in the country, and the biggest celeb in Cincinnati. A 15 year old child is very naive and impressionable. Any way you slice it, that is rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy Jones
great, so he's scum too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy Jones
Thinking sex with a 15 year old as a 34 year old is rape is feminism?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutaman
Wowzer.
Dad went to McNick with my mom's older brothers (my uncles). They were pretty good friends and my mom was just like the attractive younger sister who obviously began to blossom and my dad had a crush on her.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedTeamGo!
So dad had the hots for mom, mom liked dad plus wanted to move out of her parents house, so they chose to get married.
As far as I've been told i was conceived on their honeymoon (they weren't exactly rich) at the ole El Rancho Rankin motel in Mt Washington across from Lunkin Airport.
Were you also a preemie?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
So if she's 15 in August but 16 in September she's suddenly mature enough to consent now? Is that really what you're going with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer's Ghost
"Jesus duuuude"
15 year olds are consenting to have sex all the time. Whether it's with a 13, 15, 18, 25, or 34 year old it's not the same as that person she's having sex with forcing himself on her. Not even close. Can she be taken advantage of because she's young and naive? Yes. That's probably the case in many instances, particularly with someone with a massive age difference. But again, it's not the same as forcible rape.
My guy, you know there is a wide variety of things that constitute as rape that are not violent/forcibleQuote:
Originally Posted by Tracy Jones
I'm not seeing much out of control feminism here. I'm seeing sensible people speaking up against a deplorable act. No matter how you slice it man who is married in his mid 30s having sex with a 15-16 year old is wrong. Just as wrong as if the sexes were reversed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutaman
This is kinda one of these places where you have to draw a bright line. So yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy Jones
And of course there's still a difference between statutory and forced rape. It's just not THAT big a difference.
Trust me. It's not the same. It's obviously not right, but it's not the same as forcible rape. I'd be pissed for the former. I'd kill him for the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedTeamGo!
Nah brah he'd be scum if she was 16 too. You're scum for defending it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy Jones
Knock it offQuote:
Originally Posted by Boston Red
Yeah I'm not really seeing the point in splitting hairs here, 16 is not an acceptable age by any stretch dude.
Hell I think dudes that troll around for 18 year olds are creeps too, legality aside.
[QUOTE=Wonderful Monds;3679608]16 is not an acceptable age by any stretch dude.
What are we talking about here? For a 34 year old? Clearly. Now, for a 19 year old? Different.
It's all a mess. That line is arbitrary. 15 or 16 it doesn't matter in the context of what we're talking about here. Neither is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boston Red
And yeah, it really is THAT big a difference. It's the difference between a loan shark breaking your thumb and shooting you in the head.